In the novel noun generalization task, 2 1/2-year-old children display generalized expectations about how solid and nonsolid things are named, extending names for never-before-encountered solids by shape and for never-before-encountered nonsolids by material.This distinction between solids and nonsolids has been interpreted in terms of an ontological distinction between objects and substances.Nine simulations and behavioral experiments tested the hypothesis that these expectations arise from the correlations characterizing early learned noun categories.In the simulation studies, connectionist networks were trained on noun vocabularies modeled after those of children.These networks formed generalized expectations about solids and nonsolids that match children’s performances in the novel noun generalization task in the very different languages of English and Japanese.The simulations also generate new predictions supported by new experiments with children.Implications are discussed in terms of children’s development of distinctions between kinds of categories and in terms of the nature of this knowledge. Concepts are hypothetical constructs, theoretical devices hypothesized to explain data, what people do, and what people say. The question of whether a particular theory can explain children’s concepts is therefore semantically strange because strictly speaking this question asks about an explanation of an explanation.We begin with this reminder because the goal of the research reported here is to understand the role of associative processes in children’s systematic attention to the shape of solid things and to the material of nonsolid things in the task of forming new lexical categories. These attentional biases have been interpreted in terms of children’s concepts about the ontological kinds of object and substance

Inductive learning is impossible without overhypotheses, or constraints on the hypotheses considered by the learner. Some of these overhypotheses must be innate, but we suggest that hierarchical Bayesian models help explain how the rest can be acquired. To illustrate this claim, we develop models that acquire two kinds of overhypotheses — overhypotheses about feature variability (e.g. the shape bias in word learning) and overhypotheses about the grouping of categories into ontological kinds like objects and substances.

Abstract. The embodiment hypothesis is the idea that intelligence emerges in the interaction of an agent with an environment and as a result of sensorimotor activity. In this paper we offer six lessons for developing embodied intelligent agents suggested by research in developmental psychology. We argue that starting as a baby grounded in a physical, social and linguistic world is crucial to the development of the flexible and inventive intelligence that characterizes humankind.

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

Previous research has shown that infants can acquire a “shape bias ” in word learning when presented with labels that are perfectly correlated with object shape. However, little research examines whether children can acquire a non-shape word learning bias. Research on inducing this bias can help inform the origins of the shape bias. In our experiment, 3 year-old children successfully acquired a new bias even with relatively few objects and a short training session, illustrating the relevance of the overhypothesis formation account in explaining the acquisition of early inductive constraints.

Researchers have proposed that learning names of individual words and categories leads an individual child to develop a general word learning bias. However, evidence to date comes from studies of group means rather than individuals. The current study tests the prediction that the statistics of an individual child’s vocabulary are closely related to that child’s development of word learning biases. We demonstrate that individual differences in vocabulary structure predict individual differences in novel noun generalization.

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00155 Bilingual and monolingual children attend to different cues when learning new words